Cleaning Up After the Girls

A cornicopia of items spilled out on the floor and are just (Jew)lying there after my last several pieces

On socialism, libertarianism, Mexico and institutes for social research

Today is going to be all about odds and ends, various leftovers of what I’ve covered in my last few articles, and at least one surprising new addition. I’m going to start with something I ran into while doing my last piece, on Mexican president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, this time from Breakthrough News and hosts Rania Khalek and Eugene Puryear, and a special guest analyst:

So there we have the intro by Puryear of guest John Ackerman, and his intro of Claudia Sheinbaum. Ackerman describes Steinbaum’s win as a huge victory for the left, and beyond Mexico, and details the magnitude of it, as well as that of her party, Morena.

But before that Puryear described Ackerman only as a professor at a university in Mexico (the same one Sheinbaum attended, UNAM). So who is Ackerman, really? His name and accent don’t quite seem Mexican, so let’s go to his wiki:

John Mill Ackerman Rose is an American-born, naturalized Mexican political activist, TV host, and academic at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). He is the son of social liberal thinker Bruce Ackerman and the economist Susan Rose-Ackerman, both professors at Yale Law School. He earned his undergraduate degree from Swarthmore College and received his MA and PhD in Political Sociology from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Ackerman is a professor of constitutional law at UNAM's Law School, and editor-in-chief of the Mexican Law Review magazine.

Okay, so he’s originally American, in fact from NYC, the son of parents who are also professors, both at Yale; his father was born in NYC as well and his mother, whose full maiden name was Susan Gould Rose, in a town on Long Island just outside of NYC. They met as students at Yale, and after graduating from Yale Law his father clerked for Judge Henry Friendly, said to be one of the leading judges in the 20th century on the US Court of Appeals, whose real last name was Freundlich; Friendly’s parents were Jewish immigrants from Germany. Given that Ackerman (I first thought of author Ken Ackerman) and Gould (think actor Elliot Gould) are sometimes Jewish surnames, I’m going to go out on a short limb and suggest that Ackerman is a Jew. Another bit from his wiki:

He is the host of two political talk shows, Diálogos por la democracia on TV UNAM, and John y Sabina with Sabina Berman, broadcast by Canal Once. The John y Sabina show has been criticized by the opposition as being government propaganda expensively funded with public money.

Berman’s full name is Sabina Berman Goldberg, and from her (no doubt machine-translated) wiki:

The start of Berman's life was marked by the emigration to Mexico of her parents, who were Polish Jews, under the presidential administration of Lázaro Cárdenas del Río. Her father, the industrialist Enrique Berman, lost all of his family members to World War II. Her mother is the psychoanalyst Raquel Goldberg.

So even down old Mexico way, Jews seem to randomly find other Jews. Now let’s get deeper into his wiki:

Ackerman is an activist for left-wing causes and an active supporter of National Regeneration Movement (Morena), a political party, and of its leader, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. He is married to Irma Eréndira Sandoval, former member of the cabinet as Secretary of the Civil Service.

Sandoval got her MA and PhD at UC Santa Cruz, which must be where they met. But what we see here is that Ackerman is deeply and personally connected to Morena and not just some law professor observing the party with academic distance. From her wiki:

Irma Eréndira Sandoval Ballesteros is a Mexican politician and scholar, expert in public administration and corruption control. In 2018 she was appointed by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador as head of the Ministry of Public Administration. Prior to her designation, in 2016, she was elected member of Mexico's City Constituent Assembly, where she was vice-coordinator of Morena's parliamentary fraction and secretary of the Committee for Good Governance, Fight against Corruption and Responsibilities of Public Servants. She has also worked for more than a decade at UNAM's Institute for Social Research, where she founded the Corruption and Transparency Documentation and Analysis Laboratory.

The Institute for Social Research, that sounds a lot like the New School for Social Research in NYC:

The New School for Social Research was founded in 1919 by, among others, Charles Beard, John Dewey, James Harvey Robinson, and Thorstein Veblen. In 1933, what became known as the University in Exile, had become a haven for scholars who had been dismissed from teaching positions by the Italian fascists under Benito Mussolini or had to flee Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.

One of the principle groups that fled there were people from:

…the Institute for Social Research founded at Goethe University Frankfurt in 1923. Formed during the Weimar Republic during the European interwar period, the first generation of the Frankfurt School was composed of intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents dissatisfied with the contemporary socio-economic systems of the 1930s: namely, capitalism, fascism, and communism.

All Jews, btw, and basically the creators of Cultural Marxism, the philosophy of the New Left, once safely housed in US academia.

The one section in Sandoval’s wiki beyond the general part is titled Corruption Scandals, and includes this:

Although Irma Eréndira Sandoval was the minister in charge of ensuring that public servants are graft-free, media have reported that she accepted a plot of land from the city government under Marcelo Ebrard (currently, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico), and acquired several million dollar properties outright without taking out any mortgages and while on an academic’s salary.

The footnoted source of this is in the Financial Times, an article titled López Obrador's anti-corruption push is failing, which is paywalled. It has to be said establishment sources like this have to be taken with a huge grain of salt, perhaps in particular involving leftist political movements in Latin America going back to the cold war.

What I think is clear, though, is that the bio given by Puryear on Ackerman is woefully incomplete, in particular for any viewer who doesn’t know much about BT News. Which I’ll eventually get to.

Let’s get back to the interview, which mostly focused on the domestic aspects of Steinberg’s election, where Rania makes her only contribution, expanding her significance over Latin America:

This is the only time that Israel is raised in this discussion, that related to Petro here in Colombia. In my piece Less BJ, Less BJA; More Spies, More Lies I focused on how Sheinberg might deal with the issue of the criminal ethno-state, given that her Morena predecessor has waffled visibly on the matter. But here it doesn't even come up. I found that to be odd, given that Rania self-identifies as Lebanese and is so concerned with Gaza generally.

But what this mostly had me thinking about again was the nature of Jewish socio-political activism down here south of the border, and how that ties back to the heartlands of that in the US and in Israel - globalists gonna global.

Before finishing up on BT News, let’s take a short side trip into Milei, since Ackerman mentioned the latest New Trump south of the border. One of the things I’ve said about anarcho-libertarianism is that, unlike socialism/communism on the left, it has never actually been seriously stress-tested in the real world. But Argentina’s new leader is always labelled as a libertarian, so maybe this is a first worth watching.

The third segment in Sabby Sabs’ livestream where she also covered AOC and Candy-O, which I in turn covered in my last piece, was an interview with Larry Sharpe, who is a libertarian activist, particularly involving the Libertarian Party. And in that interview Sabby raised Milei:

So it doesn’t seem like things are going that well down there, which was predictable, and Larry is just hoping for the best, I’m sure because of the blowback on libertarianism generally if this becomes a full-blown disaster. His tactic is to just kick the can down the road, with his “darkest before the dawn” spin, and he misinterprets what Sabby was saying about the poverty-stricken being asked to just wait a year - she wasn’t talking about US intervention.

But what did he say on the details? There’s a surplus, which is what you get when you cut the shit out of government spending - until the tax cuts for business and the wealthy come, that is. The markets are responding positively, which is what happens when good things happen for big corporations. And he simply lied about inflation, which has blown up this year, since he’s been in office.

I don’t know that much about Milei, but a few interesting things I saw from his wiki:

In foreign policy, he advocates closer relations with the United States and Israel, supporting Ukraine in response to the Russian invasion of the country, and distancing Argentina from geopolitical ties with China… Furthermore, Milei revealed in April 2024 that one of his grandparents found out that they were Jewish shortly before their passing.

Uh-oh, that doesn’t sound good, not good at all…

Btw, Milei’s main squeeze mentioned in that headline, Fatima Florez, until last year when she took up with ol’ Javier she was married to a guy named Norberto Marcos Berenstein - I wonder if, like RFK’s ATM, she has a thing for… 🤔

I was thinking about doing a deeper dive into this interview after listening to it, because it was perhaps the first time I really heard from someone so involved in libertarian politics and the party, but one of the things that came up at a number of points was the disorganized nature of libertarians and the dispute over what libertarianism actually is. That has always seemed inevitable to me, considering the “anti-collectivist” nature of anarcho-libertarianism and the personal liberty core aspect of it - “I’ll decide for myself what it actually is, thank you very much”. Kind of like an anarchist party being a contradiction in terms - you can have anarchy or you can have a party organization, but you can’t have both.

Here is just one of those places where what a libertarian actually is came into question:

So Rico Suave isn’t a libertarian, he’s a Republican who hates Trump. (Republicans who really hate Trump are old-school mainstream Republicans.) And Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian, but Larry just loves Gary Johnson, who I think of as the prototype of the “Republicans who smoke dope” type of centrist libertarian. But you can see his definition is tied to the party, which again shows how libertarianism is what you want it to be. Reason gets me back to Glenn Greenwald and his type of post-progressive Jewish libertarianism. Having someone with that bent on Rising like Suave makes perfect sense, since his purpose is not to fight with the progressive talking head across from him, it’s to join with that person to attack the mainstream centrists of both parties but in particular the Dems.

When I think of a true libertarian I think of someone like Ryan Dawson, who absolutely loves free-market unconstrained capitalism and hates the (US - he’s a neo-Confederate) government and especially anything definable as socialism; at the other end of the scale is the dope-smoking GOP. My former boss’ boss on my last job was one of those, a Republican who once proudly told me he was actually a libertarian; he was a conservative who smoked dope and loved cars and guns and cheating on his wife. Good guy though.

The last thing I want to say on this relates to what was the subject of much of this discussion, the problems of third parties in gaining viability in the US, and all the barriers to ballot access. The problem with US third parties is radicalism - I’ve looked at Jill Stein’s Green platform and there’s a lot of radical stuff in it (especially related to spending), and I would guess the Libertarian platform is very similar if not worse (and mostly related to radically reducing spending and taxes). You aren’t going to get 20-25% of the vote with a sub-5% platform.

The third party America needs is a centrist party which isn’t ideological, rather it differs from the uniparty on one broad subject - “corruption”. In other words, a true populist party. The only independent/third-party candidate who has done well in the last century was Perot, and he was a centrist, running against all the various problems with the Dems and the GOP. He got 20% of the vote. RFK might qualify, if he wasn’t such a Shmuley-sucker and anti-vaxx nutter - he is absolutely ideological, he’s not really running to root out general corruption. In theory he could have been that, but 20 years years ago he looked into autism and saw a gold mine…

Of course corruption today pretty much equals the Jews and their influence, and no one can talk about the Jews. So talking about wars and fiscal responsibility and campaign finance reform and honest government for the people means nothing if you can’t talk about the Jews. Which means our first problem on the list is the Jewish problem, and the rest can be handled after we answer the Jewish question. Then our world won’t continue to look like this:

Back to BT News, next I’ll take a look at Puryear and what this actually is. So let’s go to his wiki:

Eugene Puryear is a far-left American journalist, writer, activist, politician, and host on BreakThrough News. In 2014, he was a candidate for the at-large seat in the DC Council with the D.C. Statehood Green Party. In the 2008 and 2016 United States presidential elections, Puryear was the vice presidential nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), despite being ineligible to become vice president due to his age.

So what is the PSL?

The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) is a communist party in the United States. PSL was established in 2004, when its members split from the Workers World Party. The group believes that a socialist revolution is necessary to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism.

Huh. More on the PSL:

PSL co-founders included Richard Becker, Brian Becker, Gloria La Riva, and Eugene Puryear… PSL leadership are closely involved with The People's Forum and BreakThrough News. Anchors on BreakThrough News include [Brian] Becker and PSL 2016 vice-presidential candidate Puryear. Becker also co-hosted a show with John Kiriakou on Radio Sputnik of the RT state media network. PSL is closely tied to the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research [???] and its founder, Vijay Prashad, who has often appeared on BreakThrough News.

Okay, now we see that BT News is an affiliated operation. There are multiple Beckers involved in this, including Ben Becker, who I would assume is the son of either Richard or Brian. At one point this year when I was considering doing a piece on Abby Martin I had run into this video done right after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which is a co-production of Empire Files and BT News and features Brian:

What he’s describing accurately there are the critical events of the 1990s related to the US-Russian relationship today, with one missing piece: the Jews. The population reduction was due to the imposition of Milton Friedman’s neoliberalism, largely the work of the Harvard Boys including Jeffrey Sachs and Andrei Shleifer, and Yeltsin economics czar Anatoly Chubais, and the resulting despair - Russians dying mainly from suicide and increased alcoholism. Neoliberalism and shock therapy privatization also resulted in the rise of the oligarchs, who nearly took control of the state. And the first step eastward of NATO in 1999 was the work product of Clinton’s second-term military/foreign policy team - Sec of Defense Bill Cohen, NSA Sandy Berger and Sec of State Albright.

I also came across Ben Becker’s article about 10/7 published in Liberation (the PSL’s rag) in December titled Building a real left: Not one that condemns resistance and is without Palestinians. This is basically about the matter of “condemning”, which I touched on related to Rania and Abby in my last piece.

To review: Four days into the genocidal bombing and siege of Gaza, with a massive ground invasion pending, the West’s most prominent left-liberal intellectuals stood up and spoke out against … the leftists on the streets for Palestine. Naomi Klein, Michelle Goldberg, and other self-proclaimed “left” writers immediately joined the ruling-class mob howling at those who had dared to demonstrate in solidarity with the Palestinian people and their resistance in the days after the Al-Aqsa Flood operation. They declared there can be no “credible” or “decent” left that does not condemn the tactics of the Palestinian resistance — and that by “valorizing terrorism, these voices on the left are effectively choosing to stop contending for power in a serious way.”

Goldberg proposed that the left should declare instead: “We are horrified by the murder of innocent people by Hamas and we want the United States to put maximum pressure on Israel to not to commit atrocities in Gaza.” The sentence is a marvel. The feelings of horror are reserved for the actions of Hamas — not Israel — while Israeli atrocities are presented passively, a potential thing of the future, which could be hopefully stopped by U.S. government “pressure.” Ignored are all the core questions: What about the longstanding Israeli atrocities and the fact that the United States has always facilitated and funded Israeli crimes? And what should the Palestinians do in the meantime? Apparently, anything but fight back.

For her part, Klein called for, “An international left rooted in values that side with the child over the gun every single time, no matter whose gun and no matter whose child. A left that is unshakably morally consistent, and does not mistake that consistency with moral equivalency between occupier and occupied. Love.”…

Whatever initial isolation was necessary for anti-imperialists, the last month of mobilization has shown that a different type of broad unity can be built — not with bourgeois liberals — but by going directly to the base, and orienting to the majority sentiments of the Global South. Viewed from a global scale, it is the liberals who are isolated, and increasingly struggling to stay relevant. Look at the supposedly “decent left” represented by figures like Bernie Sanders and AOC: They have never been less relevant to the actual movement of history as now, when it counts the most. Sanders has stubbornly refused to even call for a ceasefire, while AOC has scarcely been better. In two month’s time, she has voiced support for the Iron Dome, then called for a ceasefire, and this week voted for a slanderous House resolution that equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Klein, Goldberg and company focused their arguments after October 7 on the killing of Israeli civilians and noncombatants as war crimes. But this was just a convenient way to mask what was really a condemnation of Palestinian armed resistance as a whole. It’s not as if they defended under the rules of war the Al Aqsa Flood operation’s killing of an estimated 280 Israeli military personnel, or its taking dozens more soldiers and even generals as prisoners of war. What they really want is for Palestinians to remain peaceful and committed to nonviolent forms of protest. A more sophisticated and explicit version of this argument was presented at length in a New York Times essay calling for Palestinians to commit to “ethical resistance.”

These four are the only four people cited by name in this piece, and all four are of Jewish blood (if one believes AOC’s claim of Sephardic roots). Conclusion: the Jew cannot be trusted, not even on the committed left, the original home of Jewish political activism in America. But do people like Puryear and the Beckers understand that? Where is the word “Jew”? Why can’t they say the left has a Jewish dual-loyalty problem that Gaza has revealed? I thought these guys were revolutionary radicals? Or are the Beckers actually Jews (it is an Ashkenazic name, from the Yiddish beker meaning baker; also think Beckerman) and Puryear just another black proxywarrior puppet? 🤔

So should we, or should followers of that committed left, trust Ackerman and Sheinbaum to be what they appear to be on the surface? I think not. And unlike Larry Sharpe with his boy Milei, I’m not going to give Sheinbaum and Morena-stan a year to see, she needs to be appraised as she acts, or in the likely case of Palestein, as she doesn’t.

Btw, on non-violent vs violent protest, there are circumstances that simply don’t fit non-violent protest. I mean, would non-violent protest have stopped the Russian invasion of Ukraine? It would have been better ultimately for Ukrainians, I’m sure, and certainly for American taxpayers, but that’s not the issue - there is a hard line between social injustice and war, and the Palestinians have been the subject of Jewish warfare for more than 75 years now.

On Naomi Klein, I included my deeper analysis of her as a Jewish socio-political activist related to her then-new book Doppelganger framed around Naomi Wolf last year within a number of pieces, ending with the one linked below. Unfortunately I posted it on October 3 and hadn’t yet gotten deeply into her discussion of Zionism and Israel at the end of the book, and four days later the whole world changed and I never got back to do it.

Well, that was a long trip down a short road in Mexico, as is a common experience in that country: “There I was in Guadalajara, just minding my own business, when all of a sudden…”

Greenwald ethnically-cleanses babies in incubators

Moving on, this time to Greenwald and Europe’s shift to the right as evidenced in the recent EU elections:

My vague sense after listening to this whole segment of his podcast (which included an interview with a Jewish “expert”, Sheri Berman) was that this election had made him just a little nervous. But there are two things in this clip that I noted. At the beginning he said claims that not every officer in the Wehrmacht was a criminal was very offensive - really? Just being of an officer’s rank in the German military was literally a crime? Is this not even a matter up for discussion?

Then at the end he was describing the notion of women in political leadership being less warmongery than men as simply an inaccurate stereotype, but I recall when that was a very common claim by feminists and the feminism-compliant in an earlier era (which he did kind of sideways acknowledge). Then when he gives examples of female warmongers he goes to Obama’s State Dept and Clinton, Rice and Power. So where’s the face on female warmongering in these times, the neocon Jew Victoria Nuland?

If I was going to name three women as examples of this I would name the three female Secretaries of State: Clinton, Condi Rice and Madeleine Albright, who all had uttered infamously bloodthirsty words:

• “We think the price is worth it”

• “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”

• “We came, we saw, he died”

But Albright is a Jew, they all can be loosely defined as neocons or at least neocon-aligned, and they all connect back to the Jew Josef Korbel, Albright’s international relations professor/Czech diplomat father, directly or indirectly. Instead closet-righty Jew Greenie paints his picture with a decidedly generic goy pallet and they’re all Obama Democrats, instead of covering all of the three critical transformational presidencies of Clinton, Bush and Obama. Booo!

In another livestream he tackles past government lies or false flags leading to wars, this related to the atrocity lies promoted by the Israelis on 10/7 and signed off on by the US establishment:

It’s nye-EAR-ah, you idiot!

So there at the end once again he names Clinton, Power and Rice - and this is a different segment on a different day. That’s about Libya, but his main focus in this segment was on lies about what happened when bin Laden was killed, the lies about using his wife as a human shield, etc., which he goes on about for seven minutes (twice the length of this Nayirah story). But that didn’t lead to any new war, in fact that was or could be seen as closure, on 9/11. And do you see Rice or Power in this photo from that day? Who came there (as a Jew?) instead?

It seems like Greenwald had a real hard-on for the Obama administration, in addition to not wanting to talk about neocon Jews massively impacting US foreign policy over the last 30-35 years. Which is evidenced by his telling of the Niryaha (or whatever her name is) story; here’s another version, from Eric Hunt in his doc on Spielberg’s The Last Days classic Holopropadoc:

It should be mentioned that this was an extra-congressional committee, it wasn’t an official government operation and that hearing took place, as I recall, in the facilities of Hill & Knowlton. What isn’t said here was that Frank Mankiewicz was the co-chairman of Hill & Knowlton at that time; he’s probably best known politically as press secretary for the RFK campaign in 1968 and the guy who announced his death to the press, and as co-chair of the 1972 McGovern campaign along with Gary Hart (he’s been blamed for the Eagleton VP choice fiasco). From his wiki:

Frank Fabian Mankiewicz II was an American journalist, political adviser, president of National Public Radio, and public relations executive. Frank Mankiewicz was born in New York City and grew up in Beverly Hills, California, the son of Sara (Aaronson) and screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who co-wrote Citizen Kane. His uncle, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, directed such films as All About Eve and Cleopatra. His brother was television writer Don Mankiewicz. They grew up near the Marx Brothers, and Harpo Marx was a presence at Mankiewicz family Passover Seders. "He would pick up the Paschal lamb bone and lead a parade around the table," Frank Mankiewicz recalled.

He sounds like a guy with the familial chops to pull off a little drama like this. Frank was also the father of Ben at TYT.

I wonder if he wants to preserve his family’s legacy related to babies in incubators? Maybe he could start by helping to preserve Hunt’s film, which seems to have become increasingly difficult to access over the years. Hmm…

Regarding Hunt’s question at the beginning of that clip, why are Jews teaching the world to hate white people?, that simple but very deep question is a material part of what I address in the linked article related to Klein; it’s worth a read, I think.

Sabby’s not done with Candy-O

Sabby Sabs was back on BJ Gray and Candy-O on her Sunday livestream, this time about BJ’s appearance on Candy’s show to commiserate on their firings over publicly pushing back on Israel’s mass murder campaign. That’s mostly what they talked about, but unfortunately Sab’s critique was almost completely about what they didn’t talk about. But first:

It’s interesting that BJ defines the exception issue around the Palestinians and not the Israelis, when I think it’s quite obvious that the group which has criticism immunity is held by the other side. She also mentioned “the one true red line” of Israel, but of course nothing about that thin Jew blue line that is the true rock-hard barrier on free speech. And Candace is the one who talks about Jews and Jewish supremacy, which I do not think BJ would raise on her own, not as a good Bernie-sucking leftist.

But Sabby goes after Candy the selfish bitch, and then an interesting conversion in her narrative - Ben Shapiro isn’t a Jewish supremacist, he’s an Israel-firster instead. Not the same thing, Sabby, you can be an Israel-firster and not be a Jewish supremacist (although the other way around isn’t nearly so easy). Why can’t you talk about Jewish supremacy, why can you only talk about Zionism?

And then it goes downhill:

$300M, not $300k, BJ - the mother of all boondoggles, and right out in plain sight. She talks about the bloody hostage rescue op that left 300 dead, according to BJ.

But Sabby can’t let go of that supremacy bit regarding BLM, as if two or three dozen black people shot by cops across America over a decade (the people in the BLM gallery of police racism) is obviously more important that 300 dead Palestinians in one day. So instead she goes on a rant that feels absolutely genuine to me, she ain’t playin’ here. Ultimately she gets to “you were on the side of the oppressor”, and we all know who that is - whitey. No matter what actual wrongdoing has been inflicted on her and hers, it’s exacerbated by the victim mentality, which I think is a lesson learned by blacks from Jews as part of the black-Jewish alliance. And then there’s the question of her own racism, which can’t really be asked because she’s part of the group most identified as the victims of racism, again through the BJA but also as part of the Cultural Marxist paradigm.

One of the interesting things to me was the way that Sabby handled this discussion involving someone from the right as compared to her discussion with Sharpe, someone else from the right (and also black, I assume). With Candy-O she was truly seething, but with Larry she was very civil. So why? Part of it might be the particulars regarding BLM, but I also think part is that she doesn’t really understand what libertarianism is. Which is understandable, given that it’s so hard to define even by libertarians. That in turn helps explain the progressive-libertarian alliance - I think a lot of post-progressives have a limited and too-rosy view of libertarianism, as it should be seen from a leftist’s point of view. But on some level she understands the Trumptard, people who support that racist xenophobe (the mainstream left - read Jewish - definition of him).

The reality likely is that Candy and Larry aren’t all that far apart politically, rather it’s just mostly window-dressing. I saw Candy on Breaking Points interviewed by Kumar… er, Cigar yesterday, and she said her first pick for Trump’s VP would be Kumar… er, Vivek Swamaramy, and her second choice would be Thomas Massie. Larry insists Vivek isn’t libertarian - I think he’s very close, given the broad range of definitions of that - but he would take Massie any day as a Libertarian candidate.

My other thought on Sabby was that perhaps some black people came out of 2020 obsessed with BLM much like some other people came out of 2020 obsessed with covid, and those obsessions also settled on reparations and vaccines. So maybe Sabby on BLM/reparations is kind of like Kim Iversen on covid/vaccines, as is evidenced by this screenshot of Kim’s Rumble channel showing her shows going back about a month:

Of course that’s also probably a case of “audience capture”, feeding their audiences what they perceive that they want to hear. It’s the feedback loop that creates an echo chamber, and if you’re not on their wavelength there’s nothing there for you. So let’s move on.

Btw, just for amusement’s sake I went back five years on Kim’s Youtube channel to see what her shows were about back then, only months after she started doing this and long before covid, when she was (barely, it turns out) supporting Gabbard over Sanders in the Dem race. Just a sample:

The anti-Hillary Dem centrist thing was already there, of course, but she seems like a different person to me. And most of that difference revolves around covid.

Grayzone: is “JEW” a three-letter agency?

In last week’s Grayzone livestream there were multiple points where my eyebrows were raised a bit, and not generally in a good way. I’ll start with a more positive example:

Yes, Max, so many layers of sickness. The soap reference is a great one mythologically, since soap made from Jewish body fat was one of the great fabrications of Holocaustism lore, and historians universally acknowledge that. The impact of that ben Gurion decision, if true, goes way beyond Israel; the Eichmann trial was one of the foundational events in the rise of Holocaustism, the world’s greatest religion in the 21st century. It was nice to hear someone talking about that, even if narrowed just to Israel.

Now on to the more negative stuff - in this clip I give four examples of problematic framing, mostly during the main discussion of this livestream, which was about attacks on Grayzone generally and Wyatt Reed specifically (he joins for the last couple):

1. The first one is triggered by Chicago Sun-Times article expert Max Bergmann, quite obviously a Jew, of the CSIS, an NGO think tank headed by Thomas Pritzker of the Pritzker first family of Chicago Jewish political mafia fame; he is the executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels and Illinois governor JB Pritzker is his cousin. One of the Epstein girls has claimed that he had sex with her once - I guess a perk of being a major figure in the Jewish deep state faction. And Israel doesn’t “use” AIPAC to bribe the US government; American Zionist Jews who man and fund AIPAC do that on their own, they don’t need prompting from Bibi. But no, all “experts” are fronts for generic US intelligence, literally, according to Blumenthal.

   

   Btw, I looked at the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs position under Obama, and this is what I found, another Jew:

   Andrew J. Shapiro is an American attorney and diplomat who served as the 17th Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs from 2009 to 2013. Shapiro is currently a managing director at Beacon Global Strategies LLC, which he founded with partners Jeremy Bash and Philippe Reines in 2013. From 2009 to 2013, Shapiro served as the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, during which time he revitalized and deepened political-military partnerships at home and abroad, and promoted record-setting foreign military sales, creating thousands of jobs in the United States while contributing to the security of key U.S. partners. As the longest-serving Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretary, Shapiro managed U.S. security relationships with partners in the Middle East.

   Jeremy Bash is yet another Jew and the former husband of Dana Bash of CNN fame, which is how the former Dana Schwartz got that name. He “is an American lawyer. He was the chief of staff at the Central Intelligence Agency (2009–2011) and the U.S. Department of Defense (2011–2013) under President Barack Obama. As a senior advisor to Leon Panetta in both roles, Bash worked on a number of key initiatives, including the creation of a new defense strategy, formation of two defense budgets, counterterrorism operations, a new cyber strategy, and a range of sensitive intelligence operations.”

   Are we starting to see what’s going on here? Everywhere you look there’s another Jew who pops up out of the woodwork, in critical positions, and they all seem to be connected in some manner.

2. Again Max frames the Atlantic Council’s funding as coming from government sources instead of Jewish oligarchs like Mark Zuckerberg, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Page & Brin and George Soros, as I detailed in my piece Less BJ, Less BJA; More Spies, More Lies. The DFR Lab has been one of the Big Four NGO players in the censorship-industrial complex, along with Renee DiResta’s Stanford Internet Observatory.

   

3. That WaPo article about Bellingcat was written in January 2021, when the editor-in-chief of the paper was still the Jewish operative Marty Baron, and Aaron says it was funded by the NED, when it was still run by the neocon Jew Carl Gershman who had headed it for nearly 40 years; they both retired later in ‘21 after long careers doing the Lord’s work. 🙄 And look at the authors of the article, Elahe Izadi and Paul Farhi - do you think one or both might also be Jews?

   

   

   Izadi’s name is Persian, and Farhi’s is apparently Sephardic and/or Mizrahi. Note that they both previously worked in the style section - these are heavyweight intelligence reporters? But according to Aaron, Bellingcat is “a NATO front”, and to Max it’s obviously “a Ukraine front”. And there I was, thinking it was a neocon front. Then Max says “the White House had squelched talk of a negotiated settlement in Ukraine”; who is “the White House”?

   

4. Here in addressing the WaPo Jewess Lizzie Dwoskin’s GZ smear (which I also covered in Less BJ), Max finally starts talking seriously about Jews - the ADL and their NCRI and Joel Finkelstein, and some Israeli intelligence anti-BDS agent. But then it all kind of falls apart with spooks, pro-Israel and FBI and DHS, and then it rolls into a fund-raiser for Wyatt in his war with the three-letter agencies. And then Max actually says, “in this moment” just like RFK’s VP ATM! 😱 It ends with these Truthers being destined for the Big House unless you pony up…

   

These guys have done great work over the last 7-8 months, especially for Jews in the broader mainstream, but I hate to see them backsliding into habitually shying so far away from the real truth. I mean, this isn’t all that different from Greenwald the last 7-8 months when he’s been dancing to play both sides since 10/7.

The Judge crosses the thin blue line?

This week I was surprised to see that the Judge had as a guest on his pod Ryan Dawson, the Donnie Darko of internet independent media (see libertards above). But apparently he’s been on the show before, and after taking a look at Napolitano’s wiki I realized what his whole media career has been - I’ve never been on the right and have never watched Fox (when I could avoid it). My guess is the main link is in fact Ry’s libertarianism, although the Judge’s wiki does include the usual “conspiracy theory” allegations and specifically mentions JFK and WTC 7.

But Ry, who has blamed Israel for having a major role in both JFK and 9/11, has gone as far down the road of the Jewish Question to once have made a “Holocaust denial” film, based on Dean Irebodd’s film work. So I would say he rather easily beats out Phil Giraldi in the Judge’s antisemite competition. In any case, I was excited to see what might come up in this discussion.

Unfortunately, it was a complete dud. Only one person uttered the J-word, and it was the Judge. Maybe the best of it was right at the end:

So he did say “the people you’re not allowed to criticize”… and then mumbled something about Israel. The people you’re not allowed to criticize are the Jews, it’s not the Israelis, who one can actually criticize even if one might get some heat for it. And I wish he’d have just said that straight out, full stop. Because everyone knows it’s true, even the people who have no issue with that, but almost no one actually says it.

What this ending made me think is that this is more of a show than I’ve assumed, that the Judge and some of his regulars are much more… opinionated than what gets presented, which is intended to foment opposition to these wars and not to discuss the full realities. Which is understandable because this is on Youtube, which has a low bar on “hate speech” and Page & Brin aren’t forgiving with regard to antisemites.

In any case, it doesn’t do that much good if Ry Dawson comes on the Judge and sounds just like Jeff Sachs. His only real value is what he’s willing to say when confined to the dark corners of the internet.